"I interviewed many neocons before the invasion and, like many people, found much to admire in their vision of spreading democracy in the Middle East," writes this Vanity Fair reporter.
Many lefties, like our own Nadir, claim that Bush posited a single justification for invading Iraq: WMDs. The concept of "spreading democracy" represented an improvised "new justification" in response to failing to find WMDs, these lefty peaceniks claim. But the evidence shows that prior to the invasion, all the neocons very clearly promoted the establishment of democracy in Iraq via US military action as a cornerstone objective in reversing the islamic crusader terrorism that manifested as 911.
In this article, neocon Richard Perle admits that he and the other neocons got two things wrong:
1. The extent of depravity amoungst the Iraqi Arabs (though he doesn't notice that the Iraqi Kurds have responded to the US invasion by establishing a civilization).
2. Bush's incompetence (though he doesn't notice that this same incompetence in Iraq's Kurdistan didn't prevent the people there from behaving civilly anyway).
I agree with these assessments, except for the omission of the Kurdish exception. This article presents many other neocons echoing Perle's second point (that Bush and his team very poorly implemented Iraq's liberation), but none comment on the roles played by Iraqis. Could a better implementation have led to civilization in the Sunni and Shia areas, even though the actual implementation positively affected civilization in the Kurdish area? I am unconvinced.